OPEN IN READ APP
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE

Risk of complication and revision total hip arthroplasty among Medicare patients with different bearing surfaces

Kevin J Bozic, Kevin Ong, Edmund Lau, Steven M Kurtz, Thomas P Vail, Harry E Rubash, Daniel J Berry
Clinical Orthopaedics and related Research 2010, 468 (9): 2357-62
20165935

BACKGROUND: To address the long-term problems of bearing surface wear and osteolysis associated with conventional metal-polyethylene (M-PE) total hip arthroplasty (THA), metal-metal (M-M), and ceramic-ceramic (C-C) bearings have been introduced. These bearing surfaces are associated with unique risks and benefits and higher costs. However the relative risks of these three bearings in an older population is unknown.

QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We compared the short-term risk of complication and revision THA among Medicare patients having a primary THA with metal-polyethylene (M-PE), metal-metal (M-M), and ceramic-ceramic (C-C) bearings.

METHODS: We used the 2005 to 2007 100% Medicare inpatient claim files to perform a matched cohort analysis in three separate cohorts of THA patients (M-PE, M-M, and C-C) who were matched by age, gender, and US census region. Multivariate Cox proportional-hazards models were constructed to compare complication and revision THA risk among cohorts, adjusting for medical comorbidities, race, socioeconomic status, and hospital factors.

RESULTS: After adjusting for patient and hospital factors, M-M bearings were associated with a higher risk of periprosthetic joint infection (hazard ratio, 3.03; confidence interval, 1.02-9.09) when compared with C-C bearings (0.59% versus 0.32%, respectively). There were no other differences among bearing cohorts in the adjusted risk of revision THA or any other complication.

CONCLUSIONS: The risk of short-term complication (including dislocation) and revision THA were similar among appropriately matched Medicare THA patients regardless of bearing surface. Hard-on-hard THA bearings are of questionable value in Medicare patients, given the higher cost associated with their use and uncertain long-term benefits in older patients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level II, prognostic study. See Guidelines for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Comments

You need to log in or sign up for an account to be able to comment.

No comments yet, be the first to post one!

Related Papers

Available on the App Store

Available on the Play Store
Remove bar
Read by QxMD icon Read
20165935
×

Search Tips

Use Boolean operators: AND/OR

diabetic AND foot
diabetes OR diabetic

Exclude a word using the 'minus' sign

Virchow -triad

Use Parentheses

water AND (cup OR glass)

Add an asterisk (*) at end of a word to include word stems

Neuro* will search for Neurology, Neuroscientist, Neurological, and so on

Use quotes to search for an exact phrase

"primary prevention of cancer"
(heart or cardiac or cardio*) AND arrest -"American Heart Association"